7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and his home address is in Svetliy village, Moldova. He is currently serving a sentence in prison UY-400/5 in the town of Donskoy (Tula Region) Russia.
8.  On 16 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for robbery.
9.  In his initial submissions the applicant stated that he had been arrested on 16 September 1998. After the application was notified to the respondent Government, however, he said that he had in fact been arrested on 29 August 1998. He further alleged that he had been beaten by police officers, both on his arrest and on 19 September 1998. According to the applicant, on 22 September 1998 he had been taken by car by two police officers, purportedly in connection with the investigation, to a forest where he was forced out of the car, hung by handcuffs from a tree and given a beating. The officers had then put a plastic bag over his head, removing it only when he started to suffocate, and forced him to confess to the offence. Then he had been given a further beating and had passed out. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the boot of the car which was approaching the remand prison. The applicant submitted that the police officers had ruptured one of his kidneys and broken five ribs and his nose.
10.  The Government submitted that on 18 September 1998 the applicant had been placed in a temporary detention centre in Naro-Fominsk pursuant to a warrant for his administrative arrest. He had been released on 24 September 1998 but rearrested the same day on suspicion of robbery.
11.  On 27 September 1998 an order was made for his detention as a preventive measure. According to the applicant, he received a further beating from police officers on that date.
12.  On 9 October 1998 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-49/4 in Mozhaysk. During a medical examination conducted the same day he complained about pain in his groin which he ascribed to the beating received in the temporary detention centre a month before. The doctor stated that owing to the time that had elapsed since the alleged assault no traces of injury could be found.
13.  On 4 December 1998 the Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's complaint of 21 October 1998 on the ground that there was no indication of a crime having been committed. The decision stated:
“On 26 October 1998 the Prosecutor's Office received an application from [Mr] Mironov, who alleged that [investigating] officials had exerted physical and moral pressure on him as a result of which he had incriminated himself.
The written statement of the head of the Naro-Fominsk temporary detention centre indicates that on 9 October 1998 [Mr] Mironov complained about pain in the left side of his back. However, the examination revealed no injuries. On 4 November 1998 he complained of a headache caused by a car accident. From [the statement] it follows that from 18 September to 9 October 1998 [Mr] Mironov made no complaints concerning his health.
Investigator [V.] stated that he had instituted criminal proceedings against [Mr] Mironov [on charges of robbery] on 16 October 1998. He could not remember who had effected the arrest. An identification parade had been held and other investigative actions taken on the same day. [Mr] Mironov had voluntarily made statements concerning the circumstances of the case. He had changed his statements after he was transferred to remand prison IZ-49/4 in Mozhaysk. Nobody had applied physical pressure on [Mr] Mironov, [V.] had not seen any injuries, [Mr] Mironov had not complained about the state of his health. ...
Officer [A.] of the Naro-Fominsk Directorate of Internal Affairs stated that ... after [Mr] Mironov had been identified by the victims he had voluntarily made statements. Nobody had either beaten him or tortured him with electricity. [A.] had never seen [Mr] Mironov again.
Officer [S.] of the Aprelevskiy district police department stated that he had not been present at [Mr] Mironov's arrest but had seen him during the course of the investigation. [Mr] Mironov had not made any complaints, [S.] had not seen any injuries. During the investigation nobody had sought to coerce [Mr] Mironov.
Therefore, ... [Mr] Mironov made the complaint after he had been transferred to remand prison IZ-49/4, that is three weeks after the alleged beating by police officers of the Aprelevskiy district police department. [Mr] Mironov did not complain to either the investigator or the prosecutor of having been beaten, but made his complaint at the end of the preliminary investigation. [Mr] Mironov cannot specify who applied physical coercion, the form the coercion took, where the blows were inflicted. Therefore, ... [Mr] Mironov's complaint is aimed at avoiding responsibility for having committed a particularly serious offence.”
14.  According to the Government, the applicant was informed of the decision five days later.
15.  In a letter of 17 December 1998 the Naro-Fominsk Deputy Prosecutor informed the applicant that an inquiry had been conducted following his complaint but that it had been decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers as there was no corpus delicti.
16.  On 26 April 2000 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to 12 years' imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of property belonging to him. It also found that the applicant had not been subjected to ill-treatment on the basis of the available medical documents and statements made by investigator V. and K., who had been present at the identification parade. The applicant appealed.
17.  On 11 January 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the Town Court's judgment.
18.  On 21 June 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment of 11 January 2002 following an application for supervisory review by the Prosecutor of the Moscow Region and remitted the case for re-examination. The Presidium stated that the appeal court had failed to provide the applicant with an interpreter or to address the arguments concerning the violation of his defence rights raised in his appeal.
19.  On 24 September 2002 the Moscow Regional Court again upheld the Town Court's judgment of 26 April 2000. It found, inter alia, that the applicant's right to assistance by a lawyer and an interpreter had been respected.
20.  On 24 June 2004 the decision of 4 December 1998 not to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment was quashed on the ground that the investigation had not been complete.
21.  On 26 June 2004 the Naro-Fominsk Deputy Prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment on the ground that there was no indication of a crime having been committed. The prosecutor questioned investigator V. and several investigating officials and police officers who stated that no pressure had been put on the applicant during the investigation. He also questioned officials of the Naro-Fominsk temporary detention centre who stated that during his placement in the detention centre the applicant had neither alleged that physical pressure had been applied to him nor asked for medical aid. They stated, furthermore, that if he had had any injuries, he would not have been admitted to remand prison IZ-49/4 in Mozhaysk and a report would have been drawn up for the Directorate General of the Internal Affairs. The prosecutor also had regard to the certificate of the medical examination of the applicant upon his arrival at remand prison IZ-49/4, which stated that he had had no injuries.
22.  According to a certificate of the Federal Service of the Execution of Sentences for the Tula Region the applicant was held:
– between 9 October 1998 and 17 August 2000 in remand prison IZ-49/4 in Mozhaysk;
– between 17 August and 4 September 2000 in remand prison IZ-50/9 (Moscow Region);
– between 4 September 2000 and 15 February 2002 in remand prison IZ-49/4 in Mozhaysk.
– between 28 February and 23 May 2002 in prison UY-400/5 in the town of Donskoy (Tula Region);
– between 27 May and 5 October 2002 in remand prison IZ-50/9 (Moscow Region);
– after 17 October 2002 in prison UY-400/1 in the town of Donskoy, (Tula Region).
23.  In reply to the Court's request to provide information about the applicant's detention during the periods that were not referred to in the certificate, the Government submitted that the applicant had been held:
– between 16 and 27 February 2002 in remand prison IZ-50/4 in Mozhaysk;
– between 24 and 26 May 2002 in remand prison IZ-71/1 in Tula.
24.  In their subsequent submissions the Government stated that the applicant had been held in remand prison IZ-50/9 between 17 August and 4 September 2000, 9 January and 25 February 2002 and 27 May and 5 October 2002.
25.  The applicant alleged that in remand prison IZ-50/9 there had on average been 60 to 70 inmates in a cell designed for 10 to 15. There were 10 beds in the cell and inmates slept in five or six shifts. They had been taken for a walk outside three or four times a month for 35 to 40 minutes at a time. In the bathroom there were 10 to 15 water jugs and the time allowed for a bath had been 20 to 30 minutes for 60 inmates. There was an “improvised” toilet in the cell around which the inmates slept on or under the beds. The cell was overrun with bed-bugs, cockroaches, lice, rats and mice, which bit the prisoners and spread disease. Some prisoners in the cell suffered from scabies and pediculosis. The cell walls were damp most of the time because of condensation. Medical aid was provided only when a prisoner could no longer walk unaided. There was nowhere to sit in the cell and not even enough standing room.
26.  The Government stated that between 27 May and 20 September 2002 the applicant had been detained in cell no. 3, which measured 24.3 square metres, held 14 to 26 inmates and had 9 beds. Between 21 and 24 September 2002 he was detained in cell no. 5, which measured 14.58 sq. m, held 7 to 10 inmates and had 5 beds. From 25 September 2002 until his transfer to prison UY-400/5 he had been detained in cell no. 70, which measured 19.65 sq. m, held 2 to 4 inmates and had 4 beds. At the same time the Government submitted that between 9 and 25 September 2002 the applicant was detained in cell no. 8, which measured 31.92 sq. m and held 42 inmates. However, in the certificate issued by remand prison IZ-50/9 on 6 July 2004 it is stated that the applicant had been held in cell no. 8 between 9 January and 25 February 2002, and the number of inmates could not be established because the relevant documents had been destroyed.
27.  According to the Government, inmates were prevented from taking a shower between 23 May and 13 June 2002 because of problems with the plumbing. Apart from this period bathing facilities were available at set times, and every inmate had sufficient time to take a shower. Inmates were taken out for a daily walk for at least an hour. There had been individual cases where inmates had not been taken out for a walk because the prison had been understaffed. However, on 3 July 2002 the acting head of remand prison IZ-50/9 had been reprimanded for a breach of prison regulations. There had also been isolated cases of inmates suffering from scabies and pediculosis being admitted to the remand prison. However, they had undergone a medical examination and their clothes had been subjected to sanitary treatment. There had been no cases of inmates being infected in the remand prison. Likewise, the presence of insects, mice or rats in the cells had not been established. Sanitary conditions in the cells had been monitored on a monthly basis by a competent authority of the penitentiary system.
28.  The applicant alleged that on 23 June 2002 several police officers had entered the cell where he was being held in remand prison IZ-50/9 and administered a beating to him and two of his cellmates. On 24 June 2002 he had lodged a complaint with the prison administration about the beating, but it had not been examined. He said that he was not examined by a doctor until a month later, by which time the bruises had already healed. It had not been possible to ascertain whether he had sustained any fractures as no X-rays had been taken. According to the applicant, on 25 June 2002 the Moscow Region Deputy Prosecutor visited the prison and asked the inmates for their comments on events and the way the prison administration had handled the inspection. However, since the inmates had not been informed of any such inspection, they only gave their account of the events of 23 June 2002, when suspects held in various cells of the remand prison had been beaten by police officers and had sustained injuries.
29.  According to the Government, the applicant's complaint concerning the events of 23 June 2002 was received by the Moscow Region Prosecutor's Office on the same date.
30.  In their first set of observations, the Government submitted that between 26 and 28 June 2002 the applicant had undergone a medical examination, which had not revealed any injuries. They also stated that he had not made any complaints about the alleged ill-treatment.
31.  In their second set of observations, the Government submitted that in the course of the inspection conducted into the applicant's complaint all inmates who had lodged similar complaints had undergone a medical examination. Investigators of the Prosecutor's Office had questioned the inmates in all the cells of the remand prison. However, “[d]uring the visit of the cells by [the] investigators ... [the applicant] did not file [any] complaints about [the] actions of officials [at] the facility. It was also established that [the applicant] and other persons detained ... with him in cell no. 3 were not among the ... arrested persons [who had lodged complaints]. Accordingly, any injuries of the applicant were not and could not be recorded in medical documents.”
32.  The Government submitted that twenty-two medical examinations had been conducted in relation to the applications lodged by inmates of remand prison IZ-50/9.
33.  On 26 June 2002 the Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region instituted criminal proceedings concerning the ill-treatment of detainees in remand prison IZ-50/9 on 23 June 2002.
34.  On 18 July 2002 the applicant had a medical examination. He told the doctor that he had pains in his back and groin as a result of the beating he had received on 23 June 2002. Upon a visual check the doctor found no traces of injuries or oedema.
35.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant was moved to prison UY-400/5 in the town of Donskoy (Tula Region).
36.  On 10 November 2002 the Moscow Region Prosecutor's Office discontinued the criminal proceedings that had been instituted as a result of the events of 23 June 2002. The order read as follows:
“The present criminal proceedings were instituted on 26 June 2002 [and concerned] abuse of authority with violence and the use of special equipment by officers from units of the Ministry of Justice penitentiary department of the Moscow Region. The criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of a complaint lodged with the regional prosecutor's office on 24 June 2002 by relatives of the detainees concerning [a] beating [they received] in facility IZ-50/9 (Moscow Region). The ... injuries to the detainees ... were confirmed in the course of the inquiry. The investigation has shown that between 10 p.m. and 12 noon on 23 June 2002 in facility IZ-50/9 (Moscow Region) officers from the facility and three officers from the special forces unit Fakel (A. Yu. Ivanov, Yu. N. Polunin and S. B. Serdechniy) checked the detainees' presence in the cells of the first [building]. At approximately 1_.30 [the hour is not fully legible] the duty assistant to the governor of the remand prison ordered the duty medical attendant to go to the first [building] to give medical assistance to the detainees. Upon her arrival, the duty medical attendant found injured detainees in cell no. 1_ [the number is not fully legible] who complained that during the morning roll-call they had been beaten by masked officers. In cell no. 20 a detainee, Mr I., had a fracture of his ... left arm; other detainees complained of pains in the chest.
According to the findings set out in the forensic medical examination reports the detainee I. suffered moderately serious injuries. The other [fourteen] detainees had received blows, which were not subject to medical assessment. In the course of the preliminary investigation it did not appear possible to establish who was responsible for which injuries.
Having regard to the fact that on 5 November 2002 the Moscow Region Prosecutor's Office received instructions from the Prosecutor General of Russia to discontinue the present criminal proceedings ... [the investigator] of the Moscow Region Prosecutor's Office orders the [present] criminal proceedings against [S. B.] Serdechniy ... , [A. Yu.] Ivanov ... and [Yu. N.] Polunin to be discontinued...”
37.  The applicant was not named in the order as being among the injured detainees.
38.  On 2 July 2004 the Moscow Region Deputy Prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant on 23 June 2002. The order read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“...[A. N.] Mironov filed a complaint with the Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region stating that on 23 June 2002, during his detention in facility IZ-50/9, he had been beaten by police officers of the special unit.
In the course of the investigation it was established that between 27 May and 5 October 2002 [A. N.] Mironov was held in facility IZ-50/9, in particular, between 27 May and 27 September 2002 in cell no. 3. Since facility IZ-50/9 was understaffed, officers from the Fakel unit of the Ministry of Justice penitentiary department of the Moscow Region participated in security measures [режимные мероприятия] on 23 June 2003. They were wearing a uniform similar to that of the police special unit.
On 24 June 2002 relatives of the detainees held in facility IZ-50/9 applied to the Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region. They stated that some of the detainees had been beaten by the police special unit during the search conducted on 23 June 2002. [A. N.] Mironov was not mentioned in the application.
The Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region conducted an investigation into the events referred to in the application of 24 June 2002. In the course of the investigation all the detainees that had filed the complaints underwent medical examinations. All detainees held in the cells at facility IZ-50/9 were questioned. [A. N.] Mironov did not make any complaints concerning the actions of the officers of the penitentiary system. In the course of the investigation it was established that on 23-24 June 2002 41 detainees applied for medical aid as a result of having been beaten by the officers of the penitentiary system who conducted the search. Neither [A. N.] Mironov nor other detainees held in cell no. 3 were among them.
...On 26 June 2002 the Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region instituted criminal proceedings. In the course of the investigation all the detainees that were mentioned in the application and applied for medical aid were questioned along with witnesses. 22 medical examinations were conducted. [A. N.] Mironov was neither a witness, nor a recognised victim.
Officers of ...the Fakel unit [A. Yu.] Ivanov, [Yu. N.] Polunin and [S. B.] Serdechniy who participated in the security measures on 23 June 2002 in building no. 1 of facility IZ-50/9 where [A. N.] Mironov had been held denied having beaten him.
[A. N.] Mironov applied for medical aid only on 18 July 2002. He complained about pain in his groin and explained it by the beating on 23 June 2002. However, according to his medical file the doctor found no traces of injuries, no bruises ... and found that his health was satisfactory.
Since, according to the established procedure, facility IZ-50/9 has destroyed the cards [pertaining to the detainees held in] 2002, it is not possible to find and question the persons who were held in cell no. 3 with [A. N.] Mironov on 23 June 2002.
Therefore, the investigation into [A. N.] Mironov's complaint showed that he had not made any complaints directly after the date of the alleged beating, in the course of the Prosecutor's investigation conducted on 24 June 2002 he was not recognised as a victim of unlawful actions of the officers of the penitentiary system, and he did not participate as a witness in the instituted criminal proceedings either.
Having regard [to the foregoing] ... the institution of criminal proceedings following the complaint of [A. N.] Mironov should be refused...”.
39.  On 20 December 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General upheld the decision of 2 July 2004.